An Open Letter to LDOT

            We live in a country whose laws are based upon something called the US Constitution. You might have heard of it, but based upon recent news you indicate an appalling lack of understanding of its basic principles, especially the First Amendment. From the rights of Nazi’s to stage a protest in Skokie, Illinois, numerous cases involving free speech zones on college campuses to numerous other cases free speech is still protected. There is no right to being protected from “disagreeable speech or being offended” although you might want to make it so. This is just another indication regarding political correctness infiltrating our society.

            This issue makes it clear the inherent dangers of hate crime legislation. As a side note, you might not be aware that more hate crimes are committed against whites than blacks. If the women stifled had the means, I am sure that she would be victorious in court. That is one of many problems with our current judicial system. It is heavily biased upon those of higher means. This letter should not even be necessary. The fact that it is, is a very sad statement about the awareness of our society.

 John Wangsgaard

I find it incredibly interesting that, every time you speak, rather than attempting to actually defend your position against what I say, you instead choose to simply attack my person. While I typically give people the benefit of the doubt, the sheer number of times in which you have engaged in this behaviour does not cast a positive light on your positions themselves, but rather reduces the probability rather significantly that you have any sort of defence for them.

I based my comments on the fact that the primary logical superstructure of your post seemed to be aimed at someone else's (in your eyes) misunderstanding of the first amendment, and that the example in question clarified, to you, why hate crime legislation is dangerous. I did make an attempt to find out what "LDOT" was, but neither Wikipedia nor Google suggested anything relevant.
If my ignorance about LDOT defeats the general logic that I have outlined (Hate crime legislation does apply to a different class of crime than simply the overt act itself, and hate crime legislation helps to provide more equal protection of law to groups that would otherwise not receive it), then the proper and logical course of action for you to is to issue a clarification, to outline why LDOT changes the analysis to such a great degree that my original becomes invalid, and to then use the information you have to negate the specific points I have raised.

One again, personally attacking me is wholly divorced from the issue, and it is disappointing that you, once again, choose not to defend your idea in the marketplace of ideas but rather to lower the level of discourse such that it becomes devoid of content.

I encourage and call upon you to to instead defend your ideas in a manner that is proper of civilised and rational debate.